Due process must be observed in lease cancellations, including the right to notice and opportunity to be heard; failure to do so violates natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, seeks to assail the order dated 23^rd July, 1987 (Annexure-4) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case No.213 of 1986 initiated under Section 7-A (3) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) cancelling the lease granted by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar infavour of the Vendor of the Petitioner, namely, Balamani Dei in W.L. Case No.950 of 1974.

3. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Vendor of the Petitioner, namely, Balamani Dei was a landless person. She applied for a piece of government land to earn her livelihood. Accordingly, WL Case No.950 of 1974 was initiated on the file of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and following due procedure of law, lease was granted in favour of said Balamani Dei in respect of Plot No.1958 under Khata No.805 to an extent of Ac.1.000 decimal in mouza Andharua under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khordha (for brevity ‘the leasehold property’). Thereafter, the record of right was also issued in favour of said Balamani Dei under Annexure-1. When the lessee, namely, Balamani Dei was in peaceful possession over the leasehold property exercising her right, title and interest thereon, she alienated Ac.0.500 decimal of land out of the leasehold property in favour of the Petitioner for her legal necessity by virtue of Registered Sale Deed dated 24^th February, 1981. On purchase, the Petitioner got the land mutated in her name and mutation ROR in respect of Plot No.1958/3171 in Khata No.621/63 of mouza Andharua under Bhubaneswar tahasil (for brevity ‘the case land’) was prepared in the name of the Petitioner. Since then, the Petitioner is in possession over the case land exercising her right and tile thereon.

4. In the year 2024, Petitioner went to the office of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to make an application for conversionof the case land to ‘Gharabari’ by paying the arrear rent, but the staff of the office of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar refused to accept the same on the ground that the lease in favour of the Vendor of the Petitioner had already been cancelled and the leasehold property has been restored to government khata. Thus, the Petitioner applied for the relevant case records and filed this Writ Petition to set aside the impugned order under Annexure-4.

5. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that no notice whatsoever was served on the Petitioner in the Lease Revision case No. 213 of 1986, although the case land which formed part of the leasehold property, had already been recorded in her name by then. Thus, the Petitioner could not know about the cancellation of the lease and contest the Revision Case No.213 of 1986. Without providing any reasonable opportunity of hearing, a valuable civil right of the Petitioner has been taken away. Hence, the impugned order is bad and illegal in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside.

6. Mr. Biswal, learned ASC referring to the counter affidavit, submits that the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, while granting lease in favour of the Vendor of the Petitioner, namely, Balamani Dei, did not follow due procedure of law. There was also material irregularity in settling the leasehold property in favour of the lessee. The leasehold property has already been recorded in government khata under ‘Abadayogya Anabadi’ status in jungle kissam. Further, the Writ Petition has been filed thirty-nine years after the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, which is impugned herein. Thus, t